Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Just an aside: does anyone know the approximate dollar cost per birth (every birth in the USA) of John Edwards?

With his wife, or his girlfriend?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Just an aside: does anyone know the approximate dollar cost per birth (every birth in the USA) of John Edwards?

With his wife, or his girlfriend?

With his lawsuits.

I once read an estimate that John Edwards was personally responsible for somewhere between $1000 and $2500 of the cost of having a baby in the USA. He had sued, and won a huge settlement, on the basis that a hospital did not use a piece of equipment that had been shown to have no discernible effect on outcomes. But, since not using it could cost millions in lawsuits post-Edwards, hospitals went out and wasted tons of money buying them.

I'll see if I can dig up that article--it was a while back, during the primaries, I think in the New York Times.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

I wasn't aware of that...would appreciate the link if you could find it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[tkhayes 348]

Bart: "Hey do toilets really flush the other way?"

Secret Service Guy: "Yes, but we had our toilet modified to flush the proper 'American' way"

Doing it different for the sake of doing it different is no argument. We spy on the Soviets back when because they might have a good idea (and for other reasons) and they spy on us because we might have a good idea.

To poo-poo some working idea just because it happens to be in Finland, Sweden, Canada or France is plain ignorance. It holds back 'free thinking' and goes against everything that the Constitution of this country stands for. But it does demonstrate many to be very narrow minded.

But the Constitution also says you are welcome to your wrong opinion in the first amendment. And note that free speech was granted in an AMENDMENT. It was not granted in the first Constitution. So much for this place being so goddamn perfect.....

back to health care - this place is NOT SO GODDAMN PERFECT. It is broken - and needs to be fixed. the status quo will not do. we are going to see change, you have the opportunity to participate in that change or get run over by it.

just like back in October, there was nothing anyone could do about Obama getting elected - it was going to happen. your complaining about it did not and would not change anything.

Health care in this country is going to change to universal in my lifetime, mark my words. You can participate in it, or get run over by it. your choice.

I choose to participate in it. You can choose to complain about it but it will do no good.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It's becoming the norm to find someone to sue for money. I don't think that will change. I can't even change my family.... how could I possibly think to change the mindset of a nation?

I don't think we need to change the mindset. If the system is set up the way is set everywhere I know (the "government" doctors are technically government employees - i.e. paid by, and followed rules of the government), the government becomes their malpractice insurance. In this case the law could limit the total awarded amount of any malpractice lawsuit to $500. Of course, the doctor - if found guilty of malpractice - could lose the license temporary or permanently, or even go to jail (should be extreme case), but no money is paid to anyone. This will bring the number of extortion lawsuits to zero, and since the patient healthcare in this scenario supposed to be based on fee which does not depend on your health (but may depend on income), the patient is still covered.

In my opinion the whole malpractice insurance system is a huge mistake. It pays the "victims" from the money it collected from the doctors. After the payment the insurance cost increases, and every doctor who pays the insurer, passes the costs on patients - like every other business does. Which in turn means that all of us are paying those million dollar settlements out of our pockets. It's ridiculous.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[bodypilot90 0]

The money is not there, how are you going to change that? The same ones will run health care, same result.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

> My bet is it will be as bad as trying to get SSD a 2 year wait.

In which case, you could use your own doctor and pay as much as you like.

So you are asking me to pay for a system that I can't use and is substandard and slow and expensive, Oh boy just what we need!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Bart: "Hey do toilets really flush the other way?"

Secret Service Guy: "Yes, but we had our toilet modified to flush the proper 'American' way"

Doing it different for the sake of doing it different is no argument. We spy on the Soviets back when because they might have a good idea (and for other reasons) and they spy on us because we might have a good idea.

Strawman argument - I've never said we shouldn't do it because it's different or because "It's not the American way".

Try again.

Quote

To poo-poo some working idea just because it happens to be in Finland, Sweden, Canada or France is plain ignorance. It holds back 'free thinking' and goes against everything that the Constitution of this country stands for. But it does demonstrate many to be very narrow minded.

You've obviously not read any of the responses where I've shown the problems that Canada and the UK have been having with their socialized health systems - maybe you should remedy that, instead of blindly defending your OWN narrow-mindedness.

Quote

But the Constitution also says you are welcome to your wrong opinion in the first amendment. And note that free speech was granted in an AMENDMENT. It was not granted in the first Constitution. So much for this place being so goddamn perfect.....

Sour grapes, much? Why are you still here and not back in 'perfect Canada', then?

Quote

back to health care - this place is NOT SO GODDAMN PERFECT. It is broken - and needs to be fixed. the status quo will not do. we are going to see change, you have the opportunity to participate in that change or get run over by it.

Again, sour grapes, much? Fix Canada and Britain's problems FIRST, then get back to me about their "perfect systems", m'kay?

Quote

just like back in October, there was nothing anyone could do about Obama getting elected - it was going to happen. your complaining about it did not and would not change anything.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

Quote

Health care in this country is going to change to universal in my lifetime, mark my words. You can participate in it, or get run over by it. your choice.

Great!! So we can have the same fucked up, rationed, too expensive systems that Canada and the UK have!! Yeah, that's JUST what we need.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

No it's not. Congress spends the excess every year. Once the current obligation is funded, Congress pisses away the rest.

Not exactly. The SS funds are invested, as required to do by law.

Then why will it be insolvent within 15 years (was that the headline 2024?)? With the hundreds of billions that go into each year, it should be self sustaining. It isn't because Congress wrote a law for themselves to allow them to spend/borrow against it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,009]

>So you are asking me to pay for a system that I can't use . . .

No, you can use it if you choose. Or you can choose not to use it.

We all do this. You may never use Yosemite - but you pay for its maintenance. You may never use I-80 in Wyoming, but you pay for that as well. You may never use flight following, but you still pay for ATC. We all pay for things we can't use directly but that benefit US society as a whole.

And your statement makes it sound like you're not paying for it now. You are; you're just using a different name for it.

[tkhayes 348]

I never said anything was 'perfect' in Canada, the Uk or anywhere else.

I am advocating that the status quo is broken. I am not advocating the universal healthcare will be 'perfect' either. I am advocating that it needs to change.

You, I do believe, are advocating NO CHANGE.

unacceptable. A fairly well working universal healthcare system is better than the current US private system.

read your homework. the system in Canada is not too expensive, - nor is it anywhere else where universal healthcare exists. And it is not 'fucked up'. It has issues.

sour grapes all you want, my last paragraph stands. It will happen. be part of it if you want, or get run over by it.

[billvon 3,009]

>I am advocating that the status quo is broken.

I tend to agree, and I think we do need to make changes, although most of the proposed national health care plans I've seen go too far in terms of coverage. In terms of right wing solutions, the closest I've seen to a plan came from John Rich recently:

"If it's something like a hospital bill, you can default on the payments. Yeah, it'll lower your credit rating, but so what. If you have a choice between eating or having a lower credit rating, then you default on the non-mandatory bills."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I never said anything was 'perfect' in Canada, the Uk or anywhere else.

I am advocating that the status quo is broken. I am not advocating the universal healthcare will be 'perfect' either. I am advocating that it needs to change.

You, I do believe, are advocating NO CHANGE.

No - I'm advocating "not THAT change".

Quote

unacceptable. A fairly well working universal healthcare system is better than the current US private system.

Your opinion, obviously.

Quote

Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Indeed, Canada's provincial governments themselves rely on American medicine. Between 2006 and 2008, Ontario sent more than 160 patients to New York and Michigan for emergency neurosurgery -- described by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain."

Only half of ER patients are treated in a timely manner by national and international standards, according to a government study. The physician shortage is so severe that some towns hold lotteries, with the winners gaining access to the local doc.

Overall, according to a study published in Lancet Oncology last year, five-year cancer survival rates are higher in the U.S. than those in Canada. Based on data from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (done by Statistics Canada and the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics), Americans have greater access to preventive screening tests and have higher treatment rates for chronic illnesses. No wonder: To limit the growth in health spending, governments restrict the supply of health care by rationing it through waiting. The same survey data show, as June and Paul O'Neill note in a paper published in 2007 in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy, that the poor under socialized medicine seem to be less healthy relative to the nonpoor than their American counterparts.

Quote

read your homework. the system in Canada is not too expensive, - nor is it anywhere else where universal healthcare exists. And it is not 'fucked up'. It has issues.

See above - and here's a snippet from the founder of Canadian socialized healthcare:

Quote

Claude Castonguay, who headed the Quebec government commission that recommended the creation of its public health-care system in the 1960s, also has second thoughts. Last year, after completing another review, he declared the system in "crisis" and suggested a massive expansion of private services -- even advocating that public hospitals rent facilities to physicians in off-hours.

Yeah, that all sounds SO much better than the system we have now....not.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

No it's not. Congress spends the excess every year. Once the current obligation is funded, Congress pisses away the rest.

Not exactly. The SS funds are invested, as required to do by law.

I saw a report (I'm on my blackberry so I cannot link it now) a while back issued by the CBO that predicted that under current laws, we've got about another 8 years of solvency of SS solvency.

It is like a Ponzi scheme and unlike insurance. In insurance, all person pay into a pool to balance risks. Stop paying into the pool and you are out.

In a Ponzi scheme initial investors pay in. Their returns are funded by later investors.

Gee - outlays will exceed revenues coming up pretty soon. These 7% returns you are talking about - how do you think those are managed? Because later investors are paying those returns.

Here's a question: you've hinted that the 7% return exceeds what the any other private investment would do over these years. How is it that these above market returns have been accomplished?

We saw this with Madoff. Consistent returns in excess of what the market would provide.

And sure, politicians raid social security frequently to do things like balance budgets. However, analysis predicts to near certainty that under current laws, the fund will be insolvent within a score BECAUSE it provides above market level returns.

Paid for by new "investors."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

I'm sorry if the reality (average 7% annual return) doesn't support your personal rhetoric. It is, nonetheless, the actual average annual return of Social Security.

Assuming the retirement age isn't increased, FICA taxes don't go up, and social security benefits increase with inflation I'll need to outlast my statistically expected lifespan by five years to get a 0% inflation adjusted return on my investments. If I took my current investment out, made the same contributions in the future, and got a 3% inflation adjusted rate of return I could get

over 4X my social security benefit for 15 years
over 2X my benefit until I die at 100
30% more until I die with $1.5M in current dollars going to my heirs

Quote

Social Security is not a pyramid scheme by any objective analysis. It is an insurance policy without a parasitic profit component.

Social security is a lot of things, including a mandatory retirement plan with a lousy rate of return.

[lawrocket 3]

Any social, economic or political system will be considered broken by portions of the population at any time.

No system can be all things good to all people. Every system will be broken.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

back to health care - this place is NOT SO GODDAMN PERFECT. It is broken - and needs to be fixed. the status quo will not do. we are going to see change, you have the opportunity to participate in that change or get run over by it.

Agreed. But you are being VERY NAIVE to think that socialized health care will be a happy shiny wonderful rainbow.

There is a culture change that will need to occur if that is going to work.

Lets talk about YOUR version of the future.

Socialized medicine starts tomorrow. Everybody is covered. Everybody is happy.

EXCEPT.....

more people present to the system. ER's get more bogged down. Family Practice clinics are now booked (or double booked) months into the future. So rather than actually see these people, the PCP's refer out some of them without even seeing those people. Specialty clinics get overbooked with inappropriate referrals. Those specialists now complain about the work that the PCP should be doing and file complaints against the PCP and the PCP gets fined for the inappropriate referral. (cuz rest assured, "Big Brother" will be watching over)

Also... pay schedules... trust me, Medicaid does NOT pay so very well. The majority of my practice is made up of that population. (Luckily, I'm not needing to do this job for the money)

More patients complain because they're "entitled" to health care. More people get mad and indignant about not being seen in the right time frame or by the right doctor.

More lawsuits. (there will always be more lawsuits)

More doctors get frustrated with the system. Increased work with ungrateful and demanding patients that think they are "owed." Increased risk (not personal, but rather professional) Decreased return (despite high cost and sacrifice)

Then you get...

Less doctors.

How's that future looking?






Let me parallel some things for you here.

In the post above, the one where I mentioned the family member that wondered if she should sue her OB for her ventral hernia. Well... she also tried to advise me on some things when I broke my ankle a year and a half ago. I broke it during a landing on New Years Day... at Z-Hills. Can you guess the line of her thinking? (Just so you don't feel too threatened, not only did she mention Z-Hills, but also thoughts about the ortho that I was seen by at the Z-Hills hospital.)

Now, imagine her and 30 patients (jumpers) like that a day. Even if they don't all sue for things that you had no control over, even if you win the lawsuit (and don't think that signing those lil sheet will save you) ... at what point do you become frustrated and just shut it down? At what point do you consider the risk not worth the return?

It's WONDERFUL to enjoy your job, whether it's as a physician or running a dropzone... but when that job starts to become threatening - and yes.... there are MANY parts about the socialized medicine plan that are threatening... how long do you do it?

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why wouldn't you use your own health care? Why would you want the government to make those decisions for you?

Because unless there is an "opt-out" clause for the "National" system, where by I get to keep whatever I might have "contributed" (read: been taxed), then I probably won't be able to afford it.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why wouldn't you use your own health care? Why would you want the government to make those decisions for you?

Because unless there is an "opt-out" clause for the "National" system, where by I get to keep whatever I might have "contributed" (read: been taxed), then I probably won't be able to afford it.

+1. Just look at Massachusetts, where premiums have doubled compared to average prices elsewhere.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,009]

>Because unless there is an "opt-out" clause for the "National" system,
>where by I get to keep whatever I might have "contributed" (read: been
>taxed), then I probably won't be able to afford it.

You can't opt out of the money you pay now to cover non-payers. You can't opt out of the FAA by agreeing to never fly. You can't opt out of the highway system by saying that you won't drive. That's because all those things are services you _can_ avail yourself of, and we as a society have decided that it's worth the economy-of-scale savings to tax everyone instead of just the direct users.

This is true of any private system as well. You can't get health insurance where you opt out of paying until you need it, at which point you start paying premiums. It doesn't work.

The reason any healthcare system works, whether it's private or not, is that healthy people pay for sick people. Without that, no healthy person pays (why should they?) the guy with arthritis gets some benefit, and the one in 100,000 who needs a heart transplant gets a huge benefit.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why wouldn't you use your own health care? Why would you want the government to make those decisions for you?

Because unless there is an "opt-out" clause for the "National" system, where by I get to keep whatever I might have "contributed" (read: been taxed), then I probably won't be able to afford it.

+1. Just look at Massachusetts, where premiums have doubled compared to average prices elsewhere.

That was why I didn't back Gov. Romney.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[diablopilot 2]

So can you assure me that this "new" system, will not cost me any more than I am paying being taxed right now?

I skydive and consider it my responsibility to keep paying for my own heath care coverage because of the risk, should I be forced to cover additional costs for those who do not have that level of responsibility?

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones?

Would that be the iPhone that costs (at a minimum - 8Gb refurb) $79, and requires a minimum of $70 in phone and data service (messaging extra)?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones?

Would that be the iPhone that costs (at a minimum - 8Gb refurb) $79, and requires a minimum of $70 in phone and data service (messaging extra)?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3582695#3582695

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.